System Level Design, Performance and Costs for San Francisco California Pelamis Offshore Wave Power Plant Report: Principal Investigator: Contributors: Date: E2I EPRI Global – 006A – SF Mirko Previsic Roger Bedard, George Hagerman and Omar Siddiqui December 11, 2004 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Wave Power Plant DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITIES This document was prepared by the organizations named below as an account of work sponsored or cosponsored by the Electric Power Research Institute Inc (EPRI) Neither EPRI, any member of EPRI, any cosponsor, the organization (s) below, nor any person acting on behalf of any of them (A) Makes any warranty or representation whatsoever, express or implied, (I) with respect to the use of any information, apparatus, method, process or similar item disclosed in this document, including merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, or (II) that such use does not infringe on or interfere with privately owned rights, including any party’s intellectual property, or (III) that this document is suitable to any particular user’s circumstance; or (B) Assumes responsibility for any damages or other liability whatsoever (including any consequential damages, even if EPRI or any EPRI representative has been advised of the possibility of such damages) resulting for your selection or use of this document or any other information, apparatus, method, process or similar item disclosed in this document Organization(s) that prepared this document Electricity Innovation Institute Global Energy Partners LLC Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Mirko Previsic Consulting Table of Contents Introduction and Summary Site Selection Wave Energy Resource Data 14 The Technologies 16 The Power Conversion Module (PCM) 18 Tubular Steel Sections 19 Mooring System 20 Electrical Interconnection & Communication 21 Subsea Cabling 22 Onshore Cabling and Grid Interconnection 23 Procurement and Manufacturing 23 Installation Activities 24 Operational Activities 25 System Design – Single Unit 26 System Design - Commercial Scale Wave Power Plant 27 Electrical Interconnection and Physical Layout 27 Operational and Maintenance Requirements 29 Device Performance 30 Cost Assessment – Demonstration Plant 33 Cost Assessment – Commercial Scale Plant 36 10 Cost of Electricity/Internal Rate of Return Assessment – Commercial Scale Plant 41 11 Learning Curves 46 12 Comparison with Commercial Scale Wind Power Plant 47 13 Conclusions 50 Offshore Demonstration Wave Power Plant 50 Commercial Scale Offshore Wave Power Plants 50 Techno-Economic Challenges 51 14 Recommendations 53 Offshore Demonstration Wave Power Plant 53 Commercial Scale Offshore Wave Power Plants 53 Technology Application 54 15 References 55 Appendix A – Monthly Wave Energy Resource Scatter Diagrams 56 Appendix B Commercial Plant Cost Economics Worksheet – Regulated Utility 62 Appendix C - Commercial Plant Cost Economics Worksheet – NUG 69 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Introduction and Summary This document describes the results of the system level conceptual design, performance and cost study of both a single unit deployment and a commercial-scale offshore wave power plant installed off the coast of San Francisco California For purposes of this point design study, the selected single unit deployment site is within the boundaries of an exclusion zone in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary at a water depth of 25m-35m, the commercial plant deployment is further offshore, in 50m water depth, because of the higher energy wave climate and the selected wave energy conversion (WEC) device is the Ocean Power Delivery (OPD) Pelamis This conceptual design study was carried out using the methodology and standards established in the Design Methodology Report (Reference 1), the Power Production Methodology Report (Reference 2) and the Cost Estimate and Economics Assessment Methodology Report (Reference 3) The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Water Pollution Control Division operates the Oceanside Wastewater Treatment Plant at 3500 Great Highway, San Francisco The plant discharges treated wastewater effluent through an outfall pipe extending approximately four miles into the ocean on shoal-free sandy bottom Because the outfall pipe is already owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, this scenario offers an ability to land the power transmission cable at a low cost The location although surrounded by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary exists in an exclusion zone, which extends approximately six miles offshore and is not part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary The SFPUC Water Quality Bureau biology staff conducts regular environmental monitoring in the area including sediment and community analyses Siting the offshore wave demonstration plant within the confines of the exclusion zone offers the potential for ease of permitting The Oceanside Facility National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit requires ongoing marine biological surveys The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Treatment Facility is available for review, and recent annual and five-year summary reports on the biological monitoring program are published on the www.sfwater.org web site This level of ongoing research establishes a baseline for future EIR requirements and impact studies anticipated by the Offshore Wave project This unique situation establishes a solid baseline for the assessment of the before and after control impact (BACI) which will be required to properly monitor the environmental impacts of such a demonstration plant The Oceanside Facility is connected by a 12kV line to PG&E’s Martin substation This existing interconnection is sufficient for the interconnection of a wave power demonstration system A new 115 kV line would be required for the 90 MW commercial power plant Net metering could be used to increase the revenues from a small demonstration wave farm On site generation is provided by the SFPUC PG&E has a service box adjacent to the Oceanside Facility allowing for a simple interconnection System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant The yearly electrical energy produced and delivered to the grid interconnection by the single Pelamis unit plant is estimated to be 668 MWh Performance numbers were established using deep water wave measurements further offshore from the proposed single unit site and an adjustment was made for energy losses of waves traveling to the single unit deployment site The single unit wave power conversion system would cost $5.6 million (with an uncertainty range of -21 to +31%)to build This cost only reflects the capital needed to purchase a single Pelamis unit, the construction costs to build the plant and the cost to interconnect to the grid and does not include the of Detailed Design and Permitting, Yearly O&M nor Test and Evaluation A commercial-scale wave power plant was also evaluated to establish a base case from which cost comparisons to other renewable energy systems can be made This commercial scale point design was established further offshore in deeper water to tap into the more energetic wave power resource The yearly electrical energy produced is estimated to be 1,407 MWh for each Pelamis WEC device In order to meet the commercial plant target output of 300,000 MWh/year a total of 213 Pelamis WEC devices are required The elements of cost and economics (with cost in 2004$) are: • • • Total Plant Investment = $279 million Annual O&M Cost = $13.1 million; 10-year Refit Cost = $28.3 million Levelized Cost of Electricity (COE)1 = 13.4 (Nominal) 11.2 (real) cents/kWh The COE for wind energy is about cents/kWh ($2004 and with Federal Production Tax Credits) Therefore, the first wave energy plant, with essentially no learning experience, cannot economically compete with wind energy at 40,000 MW of cumulative production experience In order to compare offshore wave power economics to shore based wind on an equivalent cumulative production experience basis, industry learning curves were applied to the commercial wave power plant design The results indicate that even with worst-case assumptions in place, wave power compares favorable to wind power at any equivalent cumulative production volume Offshore wave energy electricity generation is a new and emerging technology The first time electricity was provided to the electrical grid from an offshore wave power plant occurred in early August, 2004 by the full scale preproduction OPD Pelamis prototype in the UK For the first commercial-scale wave power plant assuming a regulated utility generator owner, 20 year plant life and other assumptions documented in Reference System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Many important questions about the application of offshore wave energy to electricity generation remain to be answered, such as: • • • • There is not a single wave power technology It is unclear at present what type of technology will yield optimal economics It is also unclear at present at which size these technologies will yield optimal economics Given a device type and rating, what capacity factor is optimal for a given site? Will the installed cost of wave energy conversion devices realize their potential of being much less expensive per COE than solar or wind? Will the performance, reliability and cost projections be realized in practice once wave energy devices are deployed and tested? E2I EPRI Global makes the following specific recommendations to the San Francisco Electricity Stakeholders: Coordinate efforts to attract a pilot feasibility demonstration wave energy system project to the San Francisco coast Now that the Ocean Beach single unit Pelamis plant project definition study is complete and a compelling case has been made for investing in wave energy in San Francisco, proceed to the next phase of the Project If this recommendation cannot be implemented at this time (due to lack of funding or other reason), E2I EPRI Global recommends that the momentum built up in Phase be sustained in order to bridge the gap until Phase II can start by funding what we will call Phase 1.5 with the following tasks: a Tracking potential funding sources b Tracking wave energy test and evaluation projects overseas (primarily in the UK, Portugal and Australia) and in Hawaii c Tracking status and efforts of the permitting process for new wave projects d Track and assess new wave energy devices e Establish a working group for the establishment of a permanent wave energy testing facility in the U.S Build collaboration with other states with common goals in offshore wave energy In order to stimulate the growth of ocean energy technology in the United States and to address and answer the techno-economic challenges, we recommend the following take place: • • • Federal and state recognition of ocean energy as a renewable resource and that expansion of an ocean energy industry in the U.S is a vital national priority Creation of an ocean energy program within the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy division DOE works with the government of Canada on an integrated bi-lateral strategy System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant • • • • The process for licensing, leasing, and permitting renewable energy facilities in U.S waters must be streamlined Provision of production tax credits, renewable energy credits, and other incentives to spur private investment in Ocean Energy technologies and projects Provision of adequate federal funding for RD&D and demonstration projects Ensuring that the public receives a fair return from the use of ocean energy resources and that development rights are allocated through an open, transparent process that takes into account state, local, and public concerns The techno-economic assessment forecast made by the Project Team is that wave energy will become commercially competitive with the current 40,000 MW installed land-based wind technology at a cumulative production volume of 10,000 – 20,000 MW The size of a wave machine will be an order of magnitude smaller that an equivalent rated power wind machine and therefore is forecast to be less costly The operations and maintenance (O&M) cost for a remotely located offshore wave machine in a somewhat hostile environment will, however, be higher than for a land based wind machine The results of this study show that the lower cost machine outweighs the additional O&M cost on a cost of electricity basis The challenge to the wave energy industry is to reduce the O&M cost of offshore wave energy to order to compete with onshore wind energy at large cumulative production volumes (> 40,000 MW) In addition to the economics, there are other compelling arguments for investing in offshore wave energy The first is that, with proper siting, converting ocean wave energy to electricity is believed to be one of the most environmentally benign ways of electricity generation Second, offshore wave energy offers a way to avoid the ‘Not In My Backyard’ (NIMBY) issues that plague many energy infrastructure projects, from nuclear, coal and wind generation to transmission and distribution facilities Because these devices have a very low profile and are located at a distance from the shore, they are generally not visible Third, because wave energy is less intermittent and more predictable than other renewable technologies such as solar and wind, it offers the possibility of being dispatchable and earning a capacity payment (this needs to be explored – see recommendations in Section 13) The key characteristic of wave energy that promises to enable it to be one of the lowest cost renewable technologies is its high power density Solar and wind power systems use a very diffuse solar and wind energy source Processes in the ocean tend to concentrate the solar and wind energy into ocean waves making it easier and cheaper to harvest Lastly, since a diversity of energy sources is the bedrock of a robust electricity system, to overlook wave energy is inconsistent with our national needs and goals Wave energy is an energy source that is too important to overlook System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Site Selection The selected deployment site for the San Francisco single-unit wave power plant is about miles offshore of Ocean Beach This site is within the boundaries of an exclusion zone in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary at a water depth of 35m A commercial plant deployment site is selected further offshore, in 50m water depth, because of the higher energy wave climate The location of these sites and that of two reference wave measurement buoys (NDBC 46026 and CDIP 0062) are shown in Figure A map showing the exclusion zone and environmental monitoring stations is shown in Figure It is important to understand that the Pelamis device was designed for a water depth of 50m and the mooring system will need to be adapted to the shallow deployment site off Ocean Beach Commercial Plant Site NDBC 46026 Wave Measurement Location) Sewer Outfall Pelamis Single Unit Site CDIP 0062 Near-Shore Measurement Location (Montara) Figure 1: Site Map System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Single Unit Plant Site Figure 2: San Francisco exclusion zone, showing environmental monitoring stations and Proposed Pelamis Demonstration site in 35m water depth The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Water Pollution Control Division operates the Oceanside Waste Water Treatment Plant at 3500 Great Highway, San Francisco The plant discharges treated wastewater effluent through an outfall pipe extending approximately four miles into the ocean on shoal-free sandy bottom The outfall pipe is an existing easement to land the power cable to shore, reducing cost and permitting System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant requirements The location although surrounded by the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary exists in an exclusion zone that extends approximately six miles offshore and is not part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary The SFPUC Water Quality Bureau staff conducts regular environmental monitoring in the area, including sediment and community analyses Based on data from the Oceanside Waste Water Treatment Plant offshore environmental monitoring studies the ocean floor consists mostly of soft sediments, which is ideal for both cable burial and the deployment of the Pelamis mooring system Detailed bathymetry and geotechnical assessments will need to be carried out in a detailed design and engineering phase Special attention will need to be paid to identify potential obstacles such as large rock formations in the cable route and at the deployment location This is accomplished by using a combination of side scan radar, sub-bottom profiler, local dives and sediment sampling In addition consideration needs to be given to the fact that the Ocean Beach single unit deployment site does not have the typical deep water depths of 50m or more, which will affect the systems mooring configuration Such issues can be addressed in a detailed design phase of the project Grid access is provided at the Oceanside Waste Water Treatment Plant or at the PG&E 12kV line box that services the plant Preliminary estimates suggest that the existing connection provides enough capacity to interconnect up to MVA To interconnect a commercial wave power plant the transmission from the SF Wastewater Treatment Plant to Martin sub-station will need to be upgraded to accommodate the additional load At the scale of 90MW, a new 110kV transmission line will be needed Such a new transmission will likely cost about $50 million Such a transmission could accommodate up to 250 MVA If generation of that magnitude would be added in form of offshore renewable resources (wind, tidal and wave), a new 110 kV line would be justified Alternative options to allow for a gradual build out still remain to be addressed in a detailed engineering study Alternative grid interconnection points exist further south along the coast which could accommodate such loads at lower cost Pacifica and Half Moon Bay have both substations in close proximity to the coastline, which could be used to interconnect to the power grid Determining optimal siting options remains a task that will need to be addressed in subsequent detailed siting studies The San Francisco Bay Area has ample marine engineering infrastructure (mooring, dock and crane facilities) to support both the single unit project as well as a large scale commercial plant For commercial plant construction, implementation and O&M, facilities could be located in the Hunters Point Navel Shipyard facility now undergoing economic redevelopment In 2000, San Francisco’s peak load demand was 944 MW After the energy crisis, and with implementation of energy efficiency measures, the load was reduced to 840 MW, but has 10 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Table A-7: Scatter Diagram San Francisco July NDBC 46026 Upper Tp: San Francisco 52 m Lower Tp: Hs and Tp bin boundaries Lower Hs Upper Hs Hs (m) 9.75 10.25 10 9.25 9.75 9.5 8.75 9.25 8.25 8.75 8.5 7.75 8.25 7.25 7.75 7.5 6.75 7.25 6.25 6.75 6.5 5.75 6.25 5.25 5.75 5.5 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.75 4.5 3.75 4.25 3.25 3.75 3.5 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.75 2.5 1.75 2.25 1.25 1.75 1.5 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.125 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 4.5 6.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 16 43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 47 24 95 8.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 9.5 Tp (sec) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 52 24 15 77 43 33 57 39 26 0 213 122 81 11.5 10.5 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 17.5 16.5 20.5 19.5 11 12 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 12 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 12 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 35 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 744 Total annual hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 34 117 266 283 36 744 Table A-8: Scatter Diagram San Francisco August NDBC 46026 Upper Tp: San Francisco 52 m Lower Tp: Hs and Tp bin boundaries Lower Hs Upper Hs Hs (m) 9.75 10.25 10 9.25 9.75 9.5 8.75 9.25 8.25 8.75 8.5 7.75 8.25 7.25 7.75 7.5 6.75 7.25 6.25 6.75 6.5 5.75 6.25 5.25 5.75 5.5 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.75 4.5 3.75 4.25 3.25 3.75 3.5 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.75 2.5 1.75 2.25 1.25 1.75 1.5 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.125 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.5 4.5 6.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 30 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 52 37 114 8.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 9.5 Tp (sec) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 12 74 32 19 68 42 28 0 203 95 59 11.5 10.5 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 17.5 16.5 20.5 19.5 11 12 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 40 59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 744 Total annual hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 90 245 344 45 744 59 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Table A-9: Scatter Diagram San Francisco September NDBC 46026 Upper Tp: San Francisco 52 m Lower Tp: Hs and Tp bin boundaries Lower Hs Upper Hs Hs (m) 9.75 10.25 10 9.25 9.75 9.5 8.75 9.25 8.25 8.75 8.5 7.75 8.25 7.25 7.75 7.5 6.75 7.25 6.25 6.75 6.5 5.75 6.25 5.25 5.75 5.5 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.75 4.5 3.75 4.25 3.25 3.75 3.5 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.75 2.5 1.75 2.25 1.25 1.75 1.5 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.125 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 15 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 17 46 8.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 9.5 Tp (sec) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 17 16 17 41 37 50 37 40 34 0 107 100 112 11.5 10.5 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 17.5 16.5 20.5 19.5 11 12 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 31 29 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 22 25 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 19 50 92 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 36 66 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 16 720 Total annual hours 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 99 252 295 37 720 Table A-10: Scatter Diagram San Francisco October NDBC 46026 Upper Tp: San Francisco 52 m Lower Tp: Hs and Tp bin boundaries Lower Hs Upper Hs Hs (m) 9.75 10.25 10 9.25 9.75 9.5 8.75 9.25 8.25 8.75 8.5 7.75 8.25 7.25 7.75 7.5 6.75 7.25 6.25 6.75 6.5 5.75 6.25 5.25 5.75 5.5 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.75 4.5 3.75 4.25 3.25 3.75 3.5 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.75 2.5 1.75 2.25 1.25 1.75 1.5 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.125 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 10 32 8.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 9.5 Tp (sec) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6 11 10 16 24 24 29 21 26 29 0 73 73 85 11.5 10.5 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 17.5 16.5 20.5 19.5 11 12 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 22 37 33 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 12 32 43 35 133 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 23 35 35 127 0 0 0 0 0 19 31 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 744 Total annual hours 0 0 0 0 0 13 26 64 138 236 232 27 744 60 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Table A-11: Scatter Diagram San Francisco November NDBC 46026 Upper Tp: San Francisco 52 m Lower Tp: Hs and Tp bin boundaries Lower Hs Upper Hs Hs (m) 9.75 10.25 10 9.25 9.75 9.5 8.75 9.25 8.25 8.75 8.5 7.75 8.25 7.25 7.75 7.5 6.75 7.25 6.25 6.75 6.5 5.75 6.25 5.25 5.75 5.5 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.75 4.5 3.75 4.25 3.25 3.75 3.5 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.75 2.5 1.75 2.25 1.25 1.75 1.5 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.125 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 5.5 7.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 23 8.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 9.5 Tp (sec) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 11 10 10 21 12 14 2 0 45 39 59 11.5 10.5 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 17.5 16.5 20.5 19.5 11 12 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 29 39 21 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 31 45 39 26 161 0 0 0 0 0 17 38 41 28 29 172 0 0 0 0 0 12 14 14 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 18 720 Total annual hours 0 0 0 0 13 26 53 123 168 172 136 17 720 Table A-12: Scatter Diagram San Francisco December NDBC 46026 Upper Tp: San Francisco 52 m Lower Tp: Hs and Tp bin boundaries Lower Hs Upper Hs Hs (m) 9.75 10.25 10 9.25 9.75 9.5 8.75 9.25 8.25 8.75 8.5 7.75 8.25 7.25 7.75 7.5 6.75 7.25 6.25 6.75 6.5 5.75 6.25 5.25 5.75 5.5 4.75 5.25 4.25 4.75 4.5 3.75 4.25 3.25 3.75 3.5 2.75 3.25 2.25 2.75 2.5 1.75 2.25 1.25 1.75 1.5 0.75 1.25 0.25 0.75 0.5 0.25 0.125 3.5 2.5 4.5 3.5 5.5 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.5 5.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7.5 6.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 10 8.5 7.5 9.5 10.5 8.5 9.5 Tp (sec) 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 6 14 5 10 1 0 28 24 44 11.5 10.5 12.5 11.5 14.5 13.5 17.5 16.5 20.5 19.5 11 12 14 17 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 19 20 16 82 0 0 0 0 0 17 31 41 34 26 165 0 0 0 0 2 19 33 46 47 43 29 233 0 0 0 1 1 14 16 22 24 16 0 115 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 34 744 Total annual hours 0 0 0 1 10 23 56 90 135 157 142 105 12 744 61 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Appendix B Commercial Plant Cost Economics Worksheet – Regulated Utility INSTRUCTIONS Indicates Input Cell (either input or use default values) Indicates a Calculated Cell (do not input any values) Sheet TPC/TPI (Total Plant Cost/Total Plant Investment) a) Enter Component Unit Cost and No of Units per System b) Worksheet sums component costs to get TPC c) Adds the value of the construction loan payments to get TPI Sheet AO&M (Annual operation and Maintenance Cost) a) Enter Labor Hrs and Cost by O&M Type) b) Enter Parts and Supplies Cost by O&M Type) c) Worksheet Calculates Total Annual O&M Cost Sheet O&R (Overhaul and Replacement Cost) a) Enter Year of Cost and O&R Cost per Item b) Worksheets calculates the present value of the O&R costs Sheet Assumptions (Financial) a) Enter project and financial assumptions or leave default values Sheet NPV (Net Present Value) A Gross Book Value = TPI B Annual Book Depreciation = Gross Book Value/Book Life C Cumulative Depreciation D MACRS Year Depreciation Tax Schedule Assumption E Deferred Taxes = (Gross Book Value X MACRS Rate - Annual Book Depreciation) X Debt Financing Rate F Net Book Value = Previous Year Net Book Value - Annual Book Depreciation - Deferred Tax for that Year Sheet CRR (Capital Revenue Requirements) A Net Book Value for Column F of NPV Worksheet B Common Equity = Net Book X Common Equity Financing Share X Common Equity Financing Rate C Preferred Equity = Net Book X Preferred Equity Financing Share X Preferred Equity Financing Rate D Debt = Net Book X Debt Financing Share X Debt Financing Rate E Annual Book Depreciation = Gross Book Value/Book Life F Income Taxes = (Return on Common Equity+Return of Preferred Equity-Deferred Taxes- Book Depreciation + Deferred Taxes) X (Comp Tax Rate/(1-Comp Tax Rate)) G Property Taxes and Insurance Expense = H Calculates Investment and Production Tax Credit Revenues I Capital Revenue Req'ts = Sum of Columns B through G Sheet FCR (Fixed Charge Rate) A Constant $ Capital Revenue Req'ts from Columnn H of Previous Worksheet B Constant $ Present Worth Factor = / (1 + After Tax Discount Rate) C Constant $ Product of Columns A and B = A * B D Real $ Capital Revenue Req'ts from Columnn H of Previous Worksheet E Real $ Present Worth Factor = / (1 + After Tax Discount Rate - Inflation Rate) F Real $ Product of Columns A and B = A * B Sheet Calculates COE (Cost of Electricity) COE = ((TPI * FCR) + AO&M + LO&R) / AEP In other words…The Cost of Electricity = The Sum of the Levelized Plant Investment + Annual O&M Cost + Levelized Overhaul and Replacement Cost Divided by the Annual Electric Energy Consumption 62 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant TOTAL PLANT COST (TPC) - 2004$ TPC Component Unit Procurement Onshore Trans & Grid I/C Subsea Cables Mooring Power Conversion Modules (set of 3) Concrete Structure Sections Unit Cost Total Cost (2004$) $3,360,000 $3,360,000 $13,441,000 $13,441,000 213 $116,878 $24,895,014 213 $623,961 $132,903,693 213 $244,800 $52,142,400 Facilities Installation $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,421,000 $11,421,000 Construction Management $11,937,000 $11,937,000 TOTAL $262,100,107 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT (TPI) - 2004 $ End of Year 2006 2007 Total Total Cash Expended TPC (2004$) $131,050,054 $131,050,054 $262,100,107 Before Tax Construction Loan Cost at 2004 Value of Debt Construction Financing Loan Payments Rate $9,828,754 $8,874,721 $9,828,754 $8,013,293 $19,657,508 $16,888,014 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT 2004$ $139,924,775 $139,063,346 $278,988,121 ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST (AO&M) - 2004$ Costs Yrly Cost Amount LABOR $2,584,000 $2,584,000 PARTS AND SUPPLIES (2%) $5,242,000 $5,242,000 INSURANCE (2%) $5,242,000 $5,242,000 Total $13,068,000 OVERHAUL AND REPLACEMENT COST (OAR) - 2004$ O&R Costs Year of Cost in 2004$ Cost 10 Year Retrofit Operation Parts Total 10 10 $10,858,000 $17,460,000 $28,318,000 63 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS (default assumptions in pink background - without line numbers are calculated values) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 20 Rated Plant Capacity © Annual Electric Energy Production (AEP) Therefore, Capacity Factor Year Constant Dollars Federal Tax Rate State State Tax Rate Composite Tax Rate (t) t/(1-t) Book Life Construction Financing Rate Common Equity Financing Share Preferred Equity Financing Share Debt Financing Share Common Equity Financing Rate Preferred Equity Financing Rate Debt Financing Rate Nominal Discount Rate Before-Tax Nominal Discount Rate After-Tax Inflation Rate = 3% Real Discount Rate Before-Tax Real Discount Rate After-Tax Federal Investment Tax Credit Federal Production Tax Credit State Investment Tax Credit State Production Tax Credit 90 300,000 38.03 2004 35 SF California 8.84 0.40746 0.6876 20 7.5 52 13 35 13 10.5 7.5 10.75 9.68 7.52 6.49 10 0.018 MW MWeh/yr % Year % % Years % % % % % % % % % % % % 1st year only $/kWh for 1st 10 years % of TPI 1st yr only 64 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant NET PRESENT VALUE (NPV) - 2004 $ TPI = $278,988,121 End Renewable Resource Gross Book MACRS Tax Deferred Book Depreciation Depreciation Value Annual Accumulated Schedule Taxes 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 A 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 278,988,121 Year B C D E 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 13,949,406 27,898,812 41,848,218 55,797,624 69,747,030 83,696,436 97,645,842 111,595,248 125,544,654 139,494,060 153,443,467 167,392,873 181,342,279 195,291,685 209,241,091 223,190,497 237,139,903 251,089,309 265,038,715 278,988,121 0.2000 0.3200 0.1920 0.1152 0.1152 0.0576 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17,051,475 30,692,655 16,142,063 7,411,708 7,411,708 863,941 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 -5,683,825 Net Book Value F 278,988,121 247,987,240 203,345,179 173,253,710 151,892,596 130,531,482 115,718,135 107,452,554 99,186,973 90,921,392 82,655,811 74,390,230 66,124,648 57,859,067 49,593,486 41,327,905 33,062,324 24,796,743 16,531,162 8,265,581 65 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant CAPITAL REVENUE REQUIREMENTS TPI = $278,988,121 End of Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 Net Book Returns Returns to Equity to Equity Pref Common B 247,987,240 16,763,937 3,385,026 6,509,665 13,949,406 21,104,503 50,038,099 11,674,438 203,345,179 13,746,134 2,775,662 5,337,811 13,949,406 28,796,462 5,400,000 59,205,475 173,253,710 11,711,951 2,364,913 4,547,910 13,949,406 17,652,669 5,400,000 44,826,849 151,892,596 10,267,939 2,073,334 3,987,181 13,949,406 10,841,349 5,400,000 35,719,209 130,531,482 8,823,928 1,781,755 3,426,451 13,949,406 10,033,456 5,400,000 32,614,997 115,718,135 7,822,546 1,579,553 3,037,601 13,949,406 4,970,634 5,400,000 25,959,740 107,452,554 7,263,793 1,466,727 2,820,630 13,949,406 155,454 5,400,000 20,256,009 99,186,973 6,705,039 1,353,902 2,603,658 13,949,406 -157,157 5,400,000 19,054,849 90,921,392 6,146,286 1,241,077 2,386,687 13,949,406 -469,767 5,400,000 17,853,689 82,655,811 5,587,533 1,128,252 2,169,715 13,949,406 -782,377 5,400,000 16,652,528 74,390,230 5,028,780 1,015,427 1,952,744 13,949,406 -1,094,988 5,400,000 15,451,368 66,124,648 4,470,026 902,601 1,735,772 13,949,406 -1,407,598 19,650,208 57,859,067 3,911,273 789,776 1,518,801 13,949,406 -1,720,208 18,449,047 49,593,486 3,352,520 676,951 1,301,829 13,949,406 -2,032,819 17,247,887 41,327,905 2,793,766 564,126 1,084,858 13,949,406 -2,345,429 16,046,727 33,062,324 2,235,013 451,301 867,886 13,949,406 -2,658,039 14,845,566 24,796,743 1,676,260 338,476 650,915 13,949,406 -2,970,650 13,644,406 16,531,162 1,117,507 225,650 433,943 13,949,406 -3,283,260 12,443,246 8,265,581 558,753 112,825 216,972 13,949,406 -3,595,871 11,242,085 0 Sum of Annual Capital Revenue Requirements D E 0 F ITC and Capital PTC Revenue Req'ts A C Income Tax on Interest Equity on Debt Book Dep Return -3,908,481 H I -3,908,481 418,929,844 66 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant FIXED CHARGE RATE (FCR) - NOMINAL AND REAL LEVELIZED TPI = $278,988,121 End of Capital Revenue Req'ts Nominal A Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 11,674,438 59,205,475 44,826,849 35,719,209 32,614,997 25,959,740 20,256,009 19,054,849 17,853,689 16,652,528 15,451,368 19,650,208 18,449,047 17,247,887 16,046,727 14,845,566 13,644,406 12,443,246 11,242,085 -3,908,481 418,929,844 Present Worth Factor Nominal B 0.9117 0.8313 0.7579 0.6910 0.6300 0.5744 0.5237 0.4775 0.4353 0.3969 0.3619 0.3300 0.3008 0.2743 0.2501 0.2280 0.2079 0.1895 0.1728 0.1575 C Capital Revenue Req'ts Real D 10,644,050 49,215,701 33,974,332 24,682,290 20,548,109 14,911,652 10,608,408 9,098,562 7,772,596 6,609,814 5,591,739 6,483,627 5,550,035 4,730,734 4,012,823 3,384,786 2,836,351 2,358,359 1,942,648 -615,781 224,340,838 10,683,765 52,603,298 38,668,034 29,914,276 26,518,977 20,492,858 15,524,545 14,178,597 12,897,885 11,679,748 10,521,630 12,991,102 11,841,742 10,748,313 9,708,534 8,720,206 7,781,214 6,889,523 6,043,175 -2,039,807 316,367,613 Product of Columns A and B Nominal $ The present value is at the beginning of 2006 and results from the sum of the products of the annual present 224,340,838 value factors times the annual requirements Escalation Rate 3% After Tax Discount Rate = i 9.68% n n Capital recovery factor value = i(1+i) /(1+i) -1 where book life = n and discount rate = i 0.114907902 The levelized annual charges (end of year) = Present Value (Item 1) * Capital Recovery Factor (Item 4) 25,778,535 Booked Cost 278,988,121 The levelized annual fixed charge rate (levelized annual charges divided by the booked cost) 0.0924 Present Worth Factor Real E 0.9391 0.8819 0.8282 0.7777 0.7304 0.6859 0.6441 0.6049 0.5680 0.5334 0.5009 0.4704 0.4418 0.4149 0.3896 0.3659 0.3436 0.3227 0.3030 0.2846 Product of Columns D and E F 10,033,038 46,390,519 32,024,066 23,265,426 19,368,564 14,055,662 9,999,442 8,576,267 7,326,417 6,230,384 5,270,750 6,111,440 5,231,440 4,459,171 3,782,471 3,190,486 2,673,533 2,222,980 1,831,132 -580,432 211,462,756 Real $ 211,462,756 3% 6.49% 0.090654358 19,170,020 278,988,121 0.0687 67 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant LEVELIZED COST OF ELECTRICITY CALCULATION - UTILITY GENERATOR COE = ((TPI * FCR) + AO&M + LO&R) / AEP In other words… The Cost of Electricity = The Sum of the Levelized Plant Investment + Annual O&M Cost + Levelized Overhaul and Replacement Cost Divided by the Annual Electric Energy Consumption NOMINAL RATES TPI FCR AO&M LO&R = O&R/Life AEP = COE - TPI X FCR COE - AO&M COE - LO&R COE COE Value $278,988,121 9.24% $13,068,000 $1,415,900 300,000 Units $ % $ $ MWeh/yr 8.59 4.36 0.47 cents/kWh cents/kWh cents/kWh $0.1342 13.42 $/kWh cents/kWh From From TPI From FCR From AO&M From LO&R From Assumptions Calculated Calculated REAL RATES TPI FCR AO&M LO&R = O&R/Life AEP = COE - TPI X FCR COE - AO&M COE - LO&R COE COE $278,988,121 6.87% $13,068,000 $1,415,900 300,000 $ % $ $ MWeh/yr 6.39 4.36 0.47 cents/kWh cents/kWh cents/kWh $0.1122 11.22 $/kWh cents/kWh From TPI From FCR From AO&M From LO&R From Assumptions Calculated Calculated 68 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Appendix C - Commercial Plant Cost Economics Worksheet – NUG INSTRUCTIONS Fill in first four worksheets (or use default values) - the last two worksheets are automatically calculated Refer to E2I EPRI Economic Methodology Report 004 Rev Indicates Input Cell (either input or use default values) Indicates a Calculated Cell (do not input any values) Sheet Total Plant Cost/Total Plant Investment (TPC/TPI) - 2004$ Enter Component Unit Cost and No of Units per System Worksheet sums component costs to get TPC Worksheet adds the value of the construction loan payments to get TPI Sheet AO&M (Annual Operation and Maintenance Cost) - 2004$ Enter Labor Hrs and Cost by O&M Type) Enter Parts and Supplies Cost by O&M Type) Worksheet Calculates Total Annual O&M Cost Sheet O&R ( Overhaul and Replacement Cost) - 2004$ Enter Year of Cost and O&R Cost per Item Worksheet calculates inflation to the year of the cost of the O&R Sheet Assumptions (Project, Financial and Others) Enter project, financial and other assumptions or leave default values Sheet Income Statement - Assuming no capacity factor income - Current $ 2008 Energy payments( 2002-2008) = AEP X 2002 wholesale price X 92% (to adjust price from 2002 to 2008 (an 8% decline) X Inflation from 2002 to 2008 2009-2011 Energy payments = 2008 Energy Payment X Inflation 2012-2027 Energy payments = 2011 Energy Price X 0.3% Price escalation X Inflation Calculates State Investment and Produciont tax credit Calculates Federal Investment and Production Tax Credit Scheduled O&M from TPC worksheet with inflation Scheduled O&R from TPC worksheet with inflation Earnings before EBITDA = total revenues less total operating costs Tax Depreciation = Assumed MACRS rate X TPI 10 Interest paid = Annual interest given assumed debt interest rate and life of loan 11 Taxable earnings = Tax Depreciation + Interest Paid 12 State Tax = Taxable Earnings x state tax rate 13 Federal Tax = (Taxable earnings - State Tax) X Federal tax rate 14 Total Tax Obligation = Total State + Federal Tax Sheet Cash Flow Statement - Current $ EBITDA Taxes Paid Cash Flow From Operations = EBITDA - Taxes Paid Debt Service = Principal + Interest paid on the debt loan Net Cash Flow after Tax Year of Start of Ops minus = Equity amount Year of Start of Ops = Cash flow from ops - debt service Year of Start of Ops Plus to N = Cash flow from ops - debt service Cum Net Cash Flow After Taxes = previous year net cash flow + current year net cash flow Cum IRR on net cash Flow After Taxes = discount rate that sets the present worth of the net cash flows over the book life equal to the equity investment at the commercial operations 69 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant TOTAL PLANT COST (TPC) - 2004$ Unit TPC Component Procurement Onshore Trans & Grid I/C Subsea Cables Mooring Power Conversion Modules (set of 3) Concrete Structure Sections Unit Cost Total Cost (2004$) $3,360,000 $13,441,000 $13,441,000 213 $116,878 $24,895,014 213 $623,961 $132,903,693 213 $244,800 $52,142,400 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 $11,421,000 $11,421,000 $11,937,000 $11,937,000 Facilities Installation Construction Management TOTAL Notes and Assumptions $3,360,000 $262,100,107 TOTAL PLANT INVESTMENT (TPI) - 2004 $ End of Year 2006 2007 Total Total Cash Expended TPC ($2004) $131,050,054 $131,050,054 $262,100,107 Before Tax Construction TOTAL PLANT Loan Cost at INVESTMENT Debt 2004 Value of (TPC + Loan Financing Construction Value) Rate Loan Payments ($2004) $10,484,004 $9,470,645 $140,520,699 $10,484,004 $8,555,235 $139,605,289 $20,968,009 $18,025,880 $280,125,987 ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COST (AO&M) - 2004$ Costs Yrly Cost Amount LABOR $2,584,000 $2,584,000 PARTS AND SUPPLIES $5,242,000 $5,242,000 INSURANCE $5,242,000 $5,242,000 Total $13,068,000 OVERHAUL AND REPLACEMENT COST (LOAR) - O&R Costs Year of Cost Cost in 2004$ Cost Inflated to 2018$ 10 Year Retrofit Operation Parts Total 10 10 $10,858,000 $17,460,000 $16,423,699 $26,409,817 $28,318,000 $42,833,516 70 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS (default assumptions in pink background - without line numbers are calculated values) 15 16 17 18 Rated Plant Capacity © Annual Electric Energy Production (AEP) Therefore, Capacity Factor Year Constant Dollars Federal Tax Rate State State Tax Rate Composite Tax Rate (t) t/(1-t) Book Life Construction Financing Rate Common Equity Financing Share Preferred Equity Financing Share Debt Financing Share Common Equity Financing Rate Preferred Equity Financing Rate Debt Financing Rate Current $ Discount Rate Before-Tax Current $ Discount Rate After-Tax Inflation rate Federal Investment Tax Credit Federal Production Tax Credit State Investment Tax Credit 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 State Production Tax Credit Wholesale electricity price - 2002$ Decline in wholesale elec price from 2002 to 2008 MACRS Year MACRS Year MACRS Year MACRS Year MACRS Year MACRS Year 6 10 11 12 13 14 90 300,000 38.03 2004 35 SF California 8.84 0.40746 0.6876 20 30 70 17 10.7 8.42 10 0.108 0.2000 0.3200 0.1920 0.1152 0.1152 0.0576 MW MWeh/yr % Year % % % Years % % % % % % % % % % 1st year only $/kWh for 1st 10 yrs % 1st year only $/kWh % 71 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant INCOME STATEMENT ($) Description/Year CURRENT DOLLARS 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 REVENUES Energy Payments State ITC and PTC Federal ITC and PTC TOTAL REVENUES AVG $/KWH 35,592,311 28,012,599 63,604,916 0.212 36,660,080 37,759,883 38,892,679 40,179,638 41,509,182 42,882,721 44,301,710 36,660,080 0.122 37,759,883 0.126 38,892,679 0.130 40,179,638 0.134 41,509,182 0.138 42,882,721 0.143 44,301,710 0.148 OPERATING COSTS Scheduled and Unscheduled O&M Scheduled O&R Other TOTAL 14,708,149 0 14,708,149 15,149,394 0 15,149,394 15,603,875 0 15,603,875 16,071,992 0 16,071,992 16,554,151 0 16,554,151 17,050,776 0 17,050,776 17,562,299 0 17,562,299 18,089,168 0 18,089,168 EBITDA 48,896,766 21,510,687 22,156,007 22,820,687 23,625,486 24,458,406 25,320,422 26,212,542 56,025,197 15,687,055 -22,815,486 89,640,316 15,344,258 -83,473,888 53,784,190 14,974,038 -46,602,220 32,270,514 14,574,200 -24,024,026 32,270,514 14,142,374 -22,787,402 16,135,257 13,676,003 -5,352,854 13,172,322 12,148,099 12,628,347 13,584,195 -2,016,889 -7,279,509 -9,296,398 -7,379,092 -26,633,179 -34,012,270 -4,119,636 -14,868,904 -18,988,541 -2,123,724 -7,665,106 -9,788,830 -2,014,406 -7,270,548 -9,284,955 -473,192 -1,707,882 -2,181,074 1,073,892 3,875,973 4,949,865 1,200,843 4,334,173 5,535,016 Tax Depreciation Interest PaId TAXABLE EARNINGS State Tax Federal Tax TOTAL TAX OBLIGATIONS 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 45,767,654 47,282,105 48,846,670 50,463,007 52,132,827 53,857,903 55,640,061 57,481,190 59,383,243 61,348,234 61,348,234 63,378,247 45,767,654 0.153 47,282,105 0.158 48,846,670 50,463,007 0.163 0.168 52,132,827 0.174 53,857,903 0.180 55,640,061 0.185 57,481,190 0.192 59,383,243 0.198 61,348,234 0.204 61,348,234 0.204 63,378,247 0.211 18,631,843 0 18,631,843 19,190,799 0 19,190,799 19,766,523 20,359,518 64,789,536 0 84,556,058 20,359,518 20,970,304 0 20,970,304 21,599,413 0 21,599,413 22,247,395 0 22,247,395 22,914,817 0 22,914,817 23,602,262 0 23,602,262 24,310,329 0 24,310,329 25,039,639 0 25,039,639 25,790,829 0 25,790,829 27,135,810 28,091,307 -35,709,388 30,103,488 31,162,524 32,258,490 33,392,665 34,566,373 35,780,981 37,037,905 36,308,595 37,587,419 12,040,853 15,094,957 11,406,360 16,684,946 0 10,721,108 9,981,035 -46,430,496 20,122,453 9,181,757 21,980,767 8,318,536 23,939,954 7,386,258 26,006,408 6,379,397 28,186,976 5,291,988 30,488,993 4,117,586 32,920,319 2,849,231 33,459,364 1,479,409 36,108,010 1,334,394 4,816,197 6,150,591 1,474,949 5,323,499 6,798,448 1,943,100 7,013,183 8,956,283 2,116,292 7,638,282 9,754,573 2,298,966 8,297,604 10,596,571 2,491,729 8,993,337 11,485,065 2,695,227 9,727,818 12,423,045 2,910,156 10,503,557 13,413,713 2,957,808 10,675,545 13,633,352 3,191,948 11,520,622 14,712,570 -4,104,456 -14,814,114 -18,918,570 1,778,825 6,420,270 8,199,095 72 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant CASH FLOW STATEMENT Description/Year 2006 2007 EBITDA Taxes Paid CASH FLOW FROM OPS Debt Service NET CASH FLOW AFTER TAX CUM NET CASH FLOW -84,037,796 -84,037,796 2008 2009 2010 2011 31,100,611 3,180,646 3,276,066 3,374,348 -16,547,620 -41,481,028 -26,681,362 -17,712,435 47,648,231 44,661,675 29,957,427 21,086,783 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 27,676,215 -56,361,581 24,689,660 -31,671,921 9,985,412 -21,686,509 1,114,768 -20,571,742 IRR ON NET CASH FLOW AFTER TAX 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3,535,667 3,703,815 3,879,061 4,061,687 4,251,984 4,450,254 -60,132,723 4,871,985 -17,470,752 -10,637,740 -3,786,632 -3,490,571 -3,173,653 -2,834,335 -28,870,102 -2,081,734 21,006,420 14,341,555 7,665,693 7,552,258 7,425,636 7,284,589 -31,262,621 6,953,719 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 1,034,404 -19,537,337 -5,630,461 -25,167,798 -12,306,322 -37,474,120 -12,419,757 -49,893,877 -12,546,379 -62,440,256 -12,687,426 -75,127,683 -51,234,637 -126,362,319 -13,018,297 -139,380,616 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 5,096,110 5,329,538 5,572,635 5,825,778 6,089,360 6,363,788 5,634,478 5,898,295 -1,664,738 -1,217,897 -738,979 -225,578 324,897 915,237 1,134,877 1,800,520 6,760,848 6,547,436 6,311,614 6,051,356 5,764,463 5,448,550 4,499,601 4,097,776 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -19,972,015 -13,211,168 -152,591,784 -13,424,580 -166,016,364 -13,660,402 -179,676,765 -13,920,660 -193,597,425 -14,207,553 -207,804,978 -14,523,465 -222,328,443 -15,472,414 -237,800,857 -15,874,240 -253,675,097 #DIV/0! 73 ... Single Pelamis Plant 26 System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant System Design - Commercial Scale Wave Power Plant. .. System Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Site Selection The selected deployment site for the San Francisco single-unit wave power plant is... Level Design, Performance and Cost of San Francisco Offshore Wave Power Plant Introduction and Summary This document describes the results of the system level conceptual design, performance and